this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
860 points (95.6% liked)

Actually Infuriating

328 readers
525 users here now

Community Rules:

Be Civil

Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, ). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.

Content should be actually infuriatingPolitics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.

Mark NSFW/NSFL postsPlease mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.

Keep it Legal and MoralNo promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.

Partner Communities

founded 3 days ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it does not cover all people, regardless of citizenship and residence, then I call it mandatory health insurance. Yes, it is state-run, but for me covering tourists too should be requirement for healthcare to be called universal.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I didn't call it universal, I called it free. A lot of tourists are covered because of reciprocal agreements with their countries.

It's not mandatory health insurance because you're covered whether you've paid the tax or not, cradle to grave, and the original hypothecated payments haven't covered it for decades.

It's free healthcare. I disagree very strongly with some people having an immigration ruling that they have no recourse to public funds, but that doesn't mean it isn't free healthcare.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Derp. You indeed did not say universal. My bad.